Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Small reactors are gonna be a Russian product -- because of jerks like you.. Look at the list I gave you more carefully. MANY under construction. SEVERAL operational
Small reactors are gonna be a Russian product -- because of jerks like you.. Look at the list I gave you more carefully. MANY under construction. SEVERAL operational
And they all share a critical flaw.
Security.
Big or small, a reactor still needs a full sized security team guarding it. It doesn't matter if it's sealed. It's still not bombproof.
Big reactors, economies of scale make security a minor cost.
Small reactors, security costs will make them economically unworkable.
Did your keen economic analysis take that into account?
List of designs. Not working reactors. Not units for sale.Laughing here. Mr Hanson might be one of the world's leading climate scientists, and whatever he has to say on that matter is well worth listening to. His political opinion, how best for humanity to chart a course out of the quandary, is worth as much as yours, or mine, that is, a bucket of spit. So, even assuming that letter is genuine, not yet another instance of fake news peddling, there is no sting, none at all. He can blabber about nuclear power for the next decade, I'd still consider him nutty (in this respect) and wholly misguided. The unspeakable arrogance to proclaim it is even thinkable, let alone possible, safely to store away nuclear waste for thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands of years, dooms that idea forever.
Wow. You're pretty ignorant about nuclear waste aren't you. Here's the deal about that, it is already here in the world. Every radioactive isotope ALREADY exists. Mankind didn't invent it. The isotopes that man can create exist for vanishingly small moments of time. Thus, man is merely moving the isotopes from one place to another. Add to that the fact that nuclear waste that has long half lives is basically inert, and you have a waste product that you most certainly don't want to be around, but other than directly ingesting it, for the most part is completely, and totally safe.
The only aspect of nuclear waste that is dangerous are those isotopes that have short hal lives. Those are emitting gamma radiation at prodigious rates and exposure to those materials for any period of time while they are emitting at the high rate is very dangerous. However, 6 months after the initial release of material the daughter elements that remain are poisonous, but not radioactively lethal any longer.
The people who died at Chernobyl were those who stood on the bridge and actually looked across the river at the exposed reactor, they all died, as did the hero's who worked to seal the reactor up who likewise died in their dozens and dozens. But now, it is safe to go to the area, they even have tours, and other than some areas where the radioactive material has collected, it is safe.
The new designs of nuclear reactors are incredibly safe. They have small reactors that you don't even interact with. You bury them near a city and they work for 20 years with no input. Then you dig up the block and transport it to where nobody can take a sledgehammer to it.
Really? How about a link to where one can buy one of these reactors?
Same place you buy "grid scale storage" I guess. Check ETSY on the web.. LOL..
List of small nuclear reactor designs - Wikipedia
Tesla’s Battery Revolution Just Reached Critical Mass
Tesla Motors Inc. is making a huge bet that millions of small batteries can be strung together to help kick fossil fuels off the grid. The idea is a powerful one—one that’s been used to help justify the company’s $5 billion factory near Reno, Nev.—but batteries have so far only appeared in a handful of true, grid-scale pilot projects.
That changes this week.
Three massive battery storage plants—built by Tesla, AES Corp., and Altagas Ltd.—are all officially going live in southern California at about the same time. Any one of these projects would have been the largest battery storage facility ever built. Combined, they amount to 15 percent of the battery storage installed planet-wide last year.
Ribbons will be cut and executives will take their bows. But this is a revolution that’s just getting started, Tesla Chief Technology Officer J.B. Straubel said in an interview on Friday. “It’s sort of hard to comprehend sometimes the speed all this is going at,” he said. “Our storage is growing as fast as we can humanly scale it.”
Tesla built the world's biggest battery power plant in just three months.
Grid scale storage being built, sold, and installed as we speak. And you can buy those small reactors, where?
Like usual, an old millwright has to educate an engineer. Same ol', same ol'. LOL
Small reactors are gonna be a Russian product -- because of jerks like you.. Look at the list I gave you more carefully. MANY under construction. SEVERAL operational.
From the article..
But for the most part, according to a BNEF analysis, the costs of new projects would need to drop by half in order to be profitable on a wider scale in California, and that’s not likely to happen for another decade. The total installed cost of a battery plant would need to fall to about $275 per kilowatt hour. While Tesla declined to provide its pricing data, the similarly sized Altagas project was expected to cost at least $40 million, or $500 per kilowatt hour. It's possible that with the remarkable scope of Tesla's Reno operations, the company will be able to establish new floors for pricing, forcing the industry to follow, BNEF's Sekine said.
$500/Kw-hr is enough for one HOME for one hour.. Dream on. To smooth the production of solar during GOOD days, you'd need 12 to 15 times that much for one home. 100 times that for a supermarket or small hospital.. That's a HELL of a LIMITED LIFETIME wastestream..
small reactors can be buried under a concrete cap weighing tons
very little security needed
small reactors can be buried under a concrete cap weighing tons
very little security needed
So the plan is to make small reactors too inaccessible to be bombed by people who have physical access to the reactor site, yet it will still be possible to get power out of these totally inaccessible reactors?
The specs of the vaporware reactors keep getting more interesting.
Big talk, big words, means nothing
Since the Milankovitch cycles are so incredibly long, we have no way of knowing what is "normal" for one,
we don't even really know accurate CO2 levels in the past for more than about 100 years. We have estimates based on ice core samples but that is limited data and not representative of the entire atmosphere at any given point
The isotope analysis argument is bogus because CO2 is CO2.... it's carbon and oxygen which are fundamental elements. Plants don't discriminate in the CO2 they process.
far from vapor ware
Big talk, big words, means nothing
Describes all of your posts on every topic, which are always just you repeating "Because I say so!" over and over.
Since the Milankovitch cycles are so incredibly long, we have no way of knowing what is "normal" for one,
We know ice ages always end with a fast warmup, and then go into a slow cooldown into the next ice age. That's always the pattern. That fast warmup ended 8000 years ago. It's been slow cooling ever since, and the slow cooling should have continued into the next ice age. There is no natural explanation for the current fast warming.
Moreover, we directly measure things that prove the warming is human-caused. Increases in backradiation, decreases in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands, stratospheric cooling. There are no natural explanations for these things, and they are smoking guns for human-caused global warming.
we don't even really know accurate CO2 levels in the past for more than about 100 years. We have estimates based on ice core samples but that is limited data and not representative of the entire atmosphere at any given point
Just stop. We have very accurate measurements. You're doing a Lysenkoist thing where you auto-declare that any science which TheParty doesn't like is invalid.
The isotope analysis argument is bogus because CO2 is CO2.... it's carbon and oxygen which are fundamental elements. Plants don't discriminate in the CO2 they process.
Plants, once buried, aren't exposed to cosmic radiation any more, so they stop making C14. The C14 they have decays away, so fossil fuels have no C14. Burn it, the C14-free CO2 goes into the atmosphere, and the C12/C14 ratio changes. That change has been measured.
Again, just stop. You're not qualified to be discussing this with the grownups.
far from vapor ware
And yet nobody is building them anywhere. Your miracle stats and cost figures aren't impressing anyone who is willing to lay out the cash. They all seem to recognize the vaporware thing.
If you disagree, feel free to invest your own money. Nobody is stopping you.
There is no "fast warming" we've not had warming in 17 years.
Over the last century we've had a whopping one degree of warming. That's not fast by any measure.
We're currently about half way through a Milankovitch cycle. On the second half of the cycle is when we can expect to begin experiencing gradual cooling
Absolute Bullshit. You cobble together a bunch of egghead words and try to sound like you know what you're talking about and you think dumb people will read it and believe you do. This is a sham.
What you are attempting to describe here is the way we understand that CO2 acts as an amplifier for greenhouse warming.
Furthermore, you can't even accurately define the amount humans produce or what part of that is incidental to simply existing
Again, you are missing my point. LIVING plants don't care where their CO2 comes from. You don't know how many living plants are on the planet or how much photosynthesis is taking place at any given time. Therefore, you can't know how much CO2 they're using or how much they could use if it were available
Or your apparent lack of knowledge in how the GW media circus has virtually BLACKED-OUT real discussions of 100s of other important enviro issues.
Nah, I actually know things, you are merely hyperventilating about figments of your imagination:
So, if you look closely you find the most influential broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as Fox, devoting 50 hours of broadcast on climate change, all of them combined, in all of 2016. 50 hours, and that's "BLACKED-OUT" all the other oh-so-valid environmental concerns, according to flacaltenn.
Repeating phony and long-debunked denier cult memes may work with your fellow brainwashed party apparatchiks, but the honest and independent people know it's nonsense.
More like 1C degree in 50 years, and that's very fast, ten times as fast as anything we've ever seen historically. As is always the case, you have no idea of what you're talking about.
That's totally wrong, as is all of your science. Fast warmup, slow cooldown. Halfway through is 8000 years into the cooling phase. The earth should be cooling. This isn't a discussion. You're just wrong, period.
That makes no sense. Greenhouse warming is, by definition, caused by greenhouse gases like CO2. Hence, you're saying CO2 is both the cause and amplifier of greenhouse warming. Your logic is not like our mere earth logic.
Of course we can, and have done so. You putting your fingers in your ears doesn't change that fact.
If you were capable of critical thinking, you'd understand that doesn't change isotope ratios at all, so it can't explain the changing isotope ratios that prove the increase in CO2 is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. However, you're not capable. You're not smart enough to ever understand the basics here, no matter how much we try to dumb the topic down for you.
Or your apparent lack of knowledge in how the GW media circus has virtually BLACKED-OUT real discussions of 100s of other important enviro issues.
Nah, I actually know things, you are merely hyperventilating about figments of your imagination:
So, if you look closely you find the most influential broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as Fox, devoting 50 hours of broadcast on climate change, all of them combined, in all of 2016. 50 hours, and that's "BLACKED-OUT" all the other oh-so-valid environmental concerns, according to flacaltenn.
small reactors can be buried under a concrete cap weighing tons
very little security needed
So the plan is to make small reactors too inaccessible to be bombed by people who have physical access to the reactor site, yet it will still be possible to get power out of these totally inaccessible reactors?
The specs of the vaporware reactors keep getting more interesting.
Will try to find the 2016 update for this chart. Could be fun.. The "campaign" is slowly rolling off into the sunset. .png)
Small reactors are gonna be a Russian product -- because of jerks like you.. Look at the list I gave you more carefully. MANY under construction. SEVERAL operational
And they all share a critical flaw.
Security.
Big or small, a reactor still needs a full sized security team guarding it. It doesn't matter if it's sealed. It's still not bombproof.
Big reactors, economies of scale make security a minor cost.
Small reactors, security costs will make them economically unworkable.
Did your keen economic analysis take that into account?
That's actually more damning than you think it is -- since any TV coverage of "important" issues is limited to a couple minutes of time.
In fact, it not only dominated and SQUASHED other enviro concerns, but it dominated and SQUASHED even the top 10 NATIONAL policy concerns.
Compare that for me to the coverage on the bees, whales, toads or the MILLIONS of barrels of LEAKING barrels of nuclear waste at the Govt weapons facilities.
That's actually more damning than you think it is -- since any TV coverage of "important" issues is limited to a couple minutes of time.
So, we have four networks, 365 days per year each, and 50 hours of climate change coverage between them, that makes about two minutes of climate change coverage per day on average. And is so big, huge, wall-to-wall that no other environmental concern was able to sneak in.
In fact, it not only dominated and SQUASHED other enviro concerns, but it dominated and SQUASHED even the top 10 NATIONAL policy concerns.
Laughable.
Compare that for me to the coverage on the bees, whales, toads or the MILLIONS of barrels of LEAKING barrels of nuclear waste at the Govt weapons facilities.
Yeah, nice try at shifting the burden of proof. What else is new...
From the article where you found the picture:
The relative volume of newspaper coverage at the end of the decade was approximately five times the amount paid the issue at the turn of the millennium. But the percentage of news coverage of the environment (of which climate change is a subset) across the U.S. media spectrum remained at just 1.5 percent at the end of this decade, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism (12/9/09); on network TV and radio it has actually declined each year since 2007.
So, climate change coverage being a part of environmental coverage, which ranges at about 1.5% of reporting throughout the U.S. media, topped all other top 10 national policy concerns. And a subset of these 1.5% was so big, it buried all other environmental reporting.
Your burden of proof is twofold: First, prove there is a mere "hype" about AGW, second, prove this hype is really responsible for edging out other environmental reporting.
When, in fact, the corporate media adjust their reporting in order to garner the viewers' or readers' attention by peddling towards the baser instincts of their audience. And that shitty media landscape knows exactly that Paris Hilton tops every environmental concern in terms of sales. "Hype" has nothing to do with whatever you think hyperventilating about is appropriate. The plutocrats sure see to it that news about the dying bees won't bother Americans all that much - ignoramuses make for better consumers - and also that reporting on AGW is nowhere near the wall-to-wall coverage the issue deserved. AGW should dominate reporting, including all policy issues, for it's the single-most important issue facing humankind, the screeching by the denialist crowd, apparently concerned that even the paltry reporting the issue gets might eventually change all but the completely closed minds, notwithstanding.
